Rich getting richer, hard to get ahead, etc...

[Guest]

That is true but often developers in my particular area aren't shut down by city inspectors they are shut down by neighborhood meetings, petitions and complaints. It would be cheaper for developers to pay or the state to pay for upgraded sewer then expanding the sewer system further and further down the road and then having to build the roads to go with it for everyone to live one of the most spread out cities in the nation.

The existing eighbors know new dense housing means they get the bill for expanding sewer,finding and piping enough water, and expanding and running the school system..of course they vote no. If dense housing was taxed enough to pay for the costs it generates..it would be welcomed.

[Reefgazer]

I look at things this way, too.  My father was a farmer, came of age during the Great Depression, didn't graduate high school, and had nothing.  Mom graduated high school, but was poor, as well.  Their lives were hard, all through, but they worked not for themselves, but for the betterment of their kids (my siblings and I).  Their kids have lives that are substantially more comfortable and secure, so by this measure, they were successful.  I think not many rise from poverty to upper middle class in one generation, but most take several steps to rise several socio-economic levels.

I think it takes a few generations to get there. Kind of like that old story that a professor told the med students on the first day of class, He showed the slide of a relaxed student napping under a tree and told the med students that if they studied really hard, this could,be one of their grandkids.
Look at the lifestyle of your grandparents. In most cases, I see a dramatic lessening in amount of work and physical difficulty of such. You help your kids . Sometimes that entails giving advice. My grandfather didn't get to see go to high school and made a huge impact telling his kids ," I hope you can have a job where you get to sit down ." His kids graduated high school and many of them went to night school to get a college degree. My generation gets to sit down as much as we want.

 

[Bootsie]

True! The city does the best financially if all the property is of high value. The question then is what moral and societal obligations do we have to our fellow (low income) humans, and how do we BALANCE that with financial considerations?

 

I don't hold that you can ignore financial considerations, but right now it seems tilted the other direction. I don't believe that all decisions should be made primarily based on profitability. I think we've gone too far that direction, and I don't see how more free market fixes it.

If the government benefits from high property values, then a bigger government (and less free market) does not fix it, either.  The government decisions are then based upon financial considerations, also.  More  government intervention adds another layer of expense and an additional possibility for fraud and kickbacks.  It can also misallocate resources from their optimal use by sending the wrong message regarding the opportunity cost of resources.  

[frogger]

The existing eighbors know new dense housing means they get the bill for expanding sewer,finding and piping enough water, and expanding and running the school system..of course they vote no. If dense housing was taxed enough to pay for the costs it generates..it would be welcomed.

So instead taxpayers pay millions and millions on roads. Makes sense. I really think the developer could pay for the upgrades and still make a profit and deals be made but people really don't want cheaper housing anywhere near them. I didn't realize when you paid for one little lot you should have control of miles around you.

[Scarlett]

An astounding thread. Predictably full of people who have worked three full time jobs, attended full time college and birthed a baby or two. Yes, some people can do that. But why should they have to, especially when others can do just college and relax on the weekends and live a normal non stress free life. The point of the thread is that life. Is. Not. Fair. And it really really sucks.

 

I fully recognize that I am the beneficiary of someone this surplus of the good portion. I rarely take a hot shower without thanking God for hot running clean water. Doesn't change the fact that others are getting jot clan showers along with the rest of their easy life. College paid for in full, a connection to get a job.....health care paid for, parents who have money to help you with clothes for your interviews....the list goes on.

 

Life isn't fair. I don't see how acknowledging that keeps us from doing our best.

[hepatica]

I think this is a fascinating thread. There have been lots of ideas presented about what people should do to improve their situation, but I think it is important to understand that there are actually things to be known about social mobility in the US that should inform our decisions as a public. As inequality has increased more and more, social scientists have been studying it over multiple generations. The US has some of the lowest social mobility rates in the developed world. Social mobility rates in the US have regional variations (they are particularly low in the South and the Rust belt). The US does much less than other similar developed countries to even out disposable income. And we have seen a significant decrease in government spending/investment in what political scientists call "the commons," i.e. education, infrastructure and other things whose benefits are shared by all, especially since the 1980s. So it doesn't really make sense to compare what our parents or grandparents did to what we experience now. If it feels like the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are running like hamsters on a wheel and staying in the same place, that's because that is in fact what is happening. 

 

There are lots of public policies that could address these changes (we know this because it was public policy that put us in this place). Here is a good survey article that clearly explains some of these changes and solutions, and the work of some of the researchers who are studying this problem. The point of understanding these policy changes is to understand that the rise and fall of social mobility in the US has never really been about attitude, but rather about public policy. That is what people in this thread mean when they say they can't change things by changing their attitude. It might be good for your mental health to cultivate an attitude of optimism or acceptance, to be grateful for what you have etc.., but it is not going to change the actual situation on the ground. Public policy matters. It has a real effect on people's lives. 

[SKL]

it really does sound like you are saying not to try. It really reminds me of the things my father in law would say to my DH.

 

This discussion makes me wonder to what extent the "average joe can't get ahead" statistics are caused by people telling average joes that they can't get ahead.

 

[hepatica]

This discussion makes me wonder to what extent the "average joe can't get ahead" statistics are caused by people telling average joes that they can't get ahead.

 

 

Seems to me that when you look at the whole picture we have other better, more comprehensive and more plausible explanations than just a bunch of average joes throwing in the towel.

[creekland]

I look at things this way, too.  My father was a farmer, came of age during the Great Depression, didn't graduate high school, and had nothing.  Mom graduated high school, but was poor, as well.  Their lives were hard, all through, but they worked not for themselves, but for the betterment of their kids (my siblings and I).  Their kids have lives that are substantially more comfortable and secure, so by this measure, they were successful.  I think not many rise from poverty to upper middle class in one generation, but most take several steps to rise several socio-economic levels.

 

I agree that not many do it, but with the thought of providing some incentive for those who can do it, I posted this NYT article last month which shows data regarding income levels and college degrees.  Those who start off in the lowest income levels and make it into and through college often end up moving up at least two quintiles in economic status.  From this thread, I suspect the majority come from the "parents want better for their kids" rather than "parents are jealous of their kids" group:

 

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/upshot/some-colleges-have-more-students-from-the-top-1-percent-than-the-bottom-60.html?_r=0

 

A reader shouldn't get hung up in the top half of that article, although it can fit with the idea of lack of fairness.  Instead, look farther below at quotes (with data proving them) like this:

 

"Even though they face challenges that other students do not, lower-income students end up earning almost as much on average as affluent students who attend the same college."

 

"An affluent student who attends one of 12 “Ivy plus†universities (the Ivy League colleges, Duke, M.I.T., Stanford and the University of Chicago) ends up around the 80th percentile of the income distribution on average. A lower-income student who attends one of those colleges ends up around the 75th percentile. Lower-income students who attend less elite colleges also have outcomes similar to others from the same college."

 

And of course, we all know the obvious, stated here:

 

"By contrast, the steeper gray line shows outcomes for the entire American population. Most students who grow up poor remain poor as adults, and most students who grow up affluent remain affluent."

 

There are ways out of poverty for capable kids, but one has to actually get there preferably with support.  Then we also need to fix policy to see that those who aren't capable of college level work/jobs also can earn a decent living.  The first is a path through the woods now for those who can find it and walk it.  The second... some of us are trying, but I wouldn't hold out hope of that happening anytime soon.

[SKL]

Couple things I have to say if I'm going to be honest.

 

1. Sometimes I compliment another person's child and my kids take that as an insult to them.  Example:  "She is so pretty."  "Are you saying I'm ugly?!"  No, I'm saying she's pretty.  It has nothing to do with you.  The fact that the neighbor kid may have an inheritance has nothing to do with us.  Everyone is dealt a different hand and needs to play it.  So ... what are our talents, and how are we going to use them?  And that has nothing to do with anyone else's kids.

 

2. Sorry because I know this is gonna offend some people.  But honestly.  If I had 11 children, I wouldn't be able to pay for their college either.  If I had been home with my kids for the majority of my adult life, I probably wouldn't own a home, let alone a college fund.  BUT, my kids would still be able to make their own way to and through college with the right attitude, barring special needs.  As a matter of fact, this is a little off topic, but there would be a LOT more out-of-family help for each of my kids if we were in that situation.  I'm not dissing it since that's how I got my education in the first place.  But how bad is it, really, that a family with 11 kids can expect that all of them have a chance to be college educated (barring disabilities)?

 

Yes there is room for improvement in our system as in others.

 

But remember.  If we set it up so the taxpayers are paying for higher education, we're going to have to limit who gets to go, like other countries do.  And you know realistically that the ones who have the money are going to be the ones who get to go.  So you are really advocating a transfer of income / wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.  I don't think that's going to make things more equal.

 

I think there are better ways.  We need to make a real education much more affordable i.e. less costly, and with technology, there is NO reason this can't be done.  Focusing on who's rich and who had their bed made is not how to get this done.

[Guest]

One little remark about encouraging young people to work in trade labor: let us not underestimate that that sort of work is physically hard to do. It is hot, exhausting, dirty work that can ruin your hands, your knees, your back, your hearing, your lungs. My DH wotks this sort of work and, while he is thankful that he has been gainfully employed his whole adulthood, he is not urging our kids to be blue collar workers. Yes, you can put bread on the table as a Master Plumber, but it is not accurate to say that people don't want to be in those fields because they think it's beneath them.

 

There are a lot of people who have zero ability to physically put a bathtub on their backs and go up a flight of stairs. They cannot do it one time, let alone choose a career field in which they would need to do it repeatedly. My son is working with his father this summer and I joke that it is to train him in why he wants to complete a college degree. Digging a sewer and water line in 95-degree heat is a good way to make a 17yo realize that he wants to not have to do this for the rest of his life.

[creekland]

This discussion makes me wonder to what extent the "average joe can't get ahead" statistics are caused by people telling average joes that they can't get ahead.

 

Ditto.  I plan to try to finish reading The Hillbilly Elegy today.  I think that's the main point of that book.

 

But still... there's a bell curve of humans and not all are able to get the education needed for better jobs.  They need to have decent livings too.  With money and/or connections it's not as difficult.  Without... our system is better than 2nd or 3rd world, but it could still be improved upon - esp with universal healthcare.

 

One little remark about encouraging young people to work in trade labor: let us not underestimate that that sort of work is physically hard to do. It is hot, exhausting, dirty work that can ruin your hands, your knees, your back, your hearing, your lungs. My DH wotks this sort of work and, while he is thankful that he has been gainfully employed his whole adulthood, he is not urging our kids to be blue collar workers. Yes, you can put bread on the table as a Master Plumber, but it is not accurate to say that people don't want to be in those fields because they think it's beneath them.

 

There are a lot of people who have zero ability to physically put a bathtub on their backs and go up a flight of stairs. They cannot do it one time, let alone choose a career field in which they would need to do it repeatedly. My son is working with his father this summer and I joke that it is to train him in why he wants to complete a college degree. Digging a sewer and water line in 95-degree heat is a good way to make a 17yo realize that he wants to not have to do this for the rest of his life.

 

Great point, but with respect to the underlined, it could actually show kids it IS what they want to do in life.  We've had students shadow the trades and come back feeling that's exactly what they want to be doing.  Shadowing (or sometimes summer jobs) is a really useful tool at helping students sort things out.

 

Couple things I have to say if I'm going to be honest.

 

2. Sorry because I know this is gonna offend some people.  But honestly.  If I had 11 children, I wouldn't be able to pay for their college either.  

 

This is a good point.  The choices we make definitely affect what we can afford (for those of us who need to live on a budget - meaning most of the world).  I know we planned on two kids because we felt that's how many we could afford with the lifestyle we wanted to provide them (travel, college, etc).  God gave us a third.  We love him and are glad he's here (wouldn't send him back!), but adding the third definitely affected the budget (clothes + food in addition to the "extras" we like).  We made sure there wasn't another surprise because we wanted to provide them with "our" lifestyle.  My mom is one of six kids.  If we'd had six there's no way we could have done as much as we did with our budget - not even movies or dinner out as much as we do.

 

But that's a choice we made.  I have no issues with others who prefer more kids to travel or activities, etc.  We all get to decide for ourselves where our money goes.  Different priorities are ok.

 

And I still think we need universal health care because health needs should never have to be cut... I'm in favor of more money for higher ed too.

[madteaparty]

I think this is because immigrants are a different breed of people. How many people would have the courage, drive, and cleverness to pack up a few belongings, move to a country where they did not know the language, had no social support, had no family support, and often are starting out working a job that is less prestigious than the one they worked in their country of origin? It's a huge jump off an unknown cliff, and if you don't succeed there is the risk of crashing into the ground. Not many of us would be willing and able to pull that off, so people who can already have drive, determination, and grit that many don't have, and this provides what they need to be successful. Contrast that with a person of the Hillbilly Elegy variety - someone born into the richest nation in the world, who has a safety net (even if it's imperfect) to catch them if they careen off a cliff, who's family culture does not push (for example) academic success, and who is tempted by the (opioid) drugs and alcohol that are so prevalent in their communities, and the drive, determination, and grit that carries an immigrant through is never developed.

Further, most immigrants coming here are already self selected. They're not exactly handing visas like candy in most places. Even the green card lottery has a minimum high school graduation requirement. Immigrants may be "poor" financially (though again that's a relative term) but they may have had a strong family culture of education or whatever.

And not all immigrants reach peaks of society. In fact few do. Many continue working the jobs they did when they first came.

[SereneHome]

An astounding thread. Predictably full of people who have worked three full time jobs, attended full time college and birthed a baby or two. Yes, some people can do that. But why should they have to, especially when others can do just college and relax on the weekends and live a normal non stress free life. The point of the thread is that life. Is. Not. Fair. And it really really sucks.

 

I fully recognize that I am the beneficiary of someone this surplus of the good portion. I rarely take a hot shower without thanking God for hot running clean water. Doesn't change the fact that others are getting jot clan showers along with the rest of their easy life. College paid for in full, a connection to get a job.....health care paid for, parents who have money to help you with clothes for your interviews....the list goes on.

 

Life isn't fair. I don't see how acknowledging that keeps us from doing our best.

 

I am replying to you only bc you put the sentiment of many very concisely.

 

In my opinion, that's EXACTLY the difference between people.  I never wondered "why should i have to".  It never really mattered to me what others were able to do, what kind of resources they had and how "lucky" they were.   My family was poor in our old country and was poor in US for a long time.  My  goal was to provide for  myself.  My parents'  goal was to provide for themselves.  And every other family we knew who came to US same time we did was doing the same.

 

We didn't have time or inclination to think about "rich getting richer".  We did what we could to have a better life.

 

For the first few years of being in US I didn't have any American friends bc I didn't speak English very well.  It wasn't until later that I was able to talk to people more proficiently.  We were living in a fairly poor are and I was working as a teller in a small bank.  You start to get to know your customers and have conversations and it was striking to me to listen to people - there was so much complaining about unfairness of life and how hard it was - all while cashing govt checks with their weekly manicured nails and hair dos.

 

I know that the issues of poverty and resources and achievements are complex and there are no "one size fits all" solutions.  But in my personal (may be limited) experience  people who thought that they can only do anything if there was outside help - new laws, new programs, etc - didn't get very far.  Bc there are a LOT of that out there and it still doesn't seem to help.

 

I see a person doing well - my first inclination is not to wonder why they have so  much better  or whether mommy and daddy helped them.  My first inclination is to see if I can learn anything from them so I can duplicate it and do better for myself.

 

Oh and as a side note re: hot showers - you just reminded me.  Where I am from, we used to have hot water cut out for weeks at a time to preserve resources.  Again, bc everything was govt controlled.  I still remember how my mom was giving me bath by boiling water on the stove and then mixing with with cold water in the bathtub so I could wash my hair.  :)

[Guest]

Great point, but with respect to the underlined, it could actually show kids it IS what they want to do in life. We've had students shadow the trades and come back feeling that's exactly what they want to be doing. Shadowing (or sometimes summer jobs) is a really useful tool at helping students sort things out.

Yes, the reverse is also true. My husband was attending college while working with his father and then just realized one day, "Well, I'm good at this. I might as well get my Master Plumbing license and quit Computer Science." (which, I must say, the idea that my DH ever studied computers is so laughably out of character...) It just annoys me that some people think anyone who struggles with academics is automatically well-suited to work in the trades. Trades can be brutal. If you get hurt while running a plumbing business, it is livelihood-threatening many times.

 

One of my friends owns a cleaning company and makes a good living at it. She was saying she didn't want her daughter to continue in the field. I didn't understand this and I protested, "But you make a good living at it..." And she said, "Yeah, and I'm half crippled from arthritis. I work in the middle of the night all weekend long. It pays the bills, but honestly, it pretty much sucks."

 

That is part of what I mean. Many times white collar people think it's just dandy to urge young people to become blue collar tradesmen becuase "Plumbers can make a good living." Well, yes, it can pay the bills, but let's not underestimate that it takes a physically hardy person to do some of those jobs...and it can wear a body out by 55-60, if not sooner. Why does the general public imagine plumbers as large men with big shoulders and computer technicians as skinny guys wearing glasses? Because it takes physical power to be a plumber.

[Guest]

So instead taxpayers pay millions and millions on roads. Makes sense. I really think the developer could pay for the upgrades and still make a profit and deals be made but people really don't want cheaper housing anywhere near them. I didn't realize when you paid for one little lot you should have control of miles around you.

You are asking a community you dont belong to to pay your expenses. They know what's in their budget. They know the developer isn't going to build the new classrooms and health care facilities, and pick up the staff and transportation costs. Police and fire and social services all have to be expanded too. They know the sewer and water expansion will cost a fortune, especially if the water suoply is already maxed out. The roads for single family residential are cheap in comparison to the infrastructure costs of dense housing. Dense housing needs parking garages...or were you going to demand the existing neighbors pay for mass transit to?

[Murphy101]

why should they have to? Because that is how life works.

But that is not how "life" works. "Life" doesn't discriminate. "Life" is illness, a flat tire, a kid needing an epipen, my husband needing insulin,a tornado." "Life" is not to blame for people not having healthcare or education or needing to work 2-3 jobs and still not getting ahead. People/society are to blame for that bc it's their acceptance of policies that perpetuate it that cause it. "Life" hasn't always been that way and isn't always that way everywhere. Yes life gives us all plenty of crap to deal with. So why tolerate policies and social attitudes that add more to our piles?

[Donna]

"Life" hasn't always been that way and isn't always that way everywhere. 

 

Life has always been that way.

 

There have always been people who have and those who don't...no matter how hard working they are.

 

Having just returned from a trip to an orphanage in the slums of Bangkok, I have an entirely different outlook on life and being happy with what I have. There are people in this world who have a whole lot less and whose reality is much scarier than anything I could have imagined.

[creekland]

But that is not how "life" works. "Life" doesn't discriminate. "Life" is illness, a flat tire, a kid needing an epipen, my husband needing insulin,a tornado." "Life" is not to blame for people not having healthcare or education or needing to work 2-3 jobs and still not getting ahead. People/society are to blame for that bc it's their acceptance of policies that perpetuate it that cause it. "Life" hasn't always been that way and isn't always that way everywhere. Yes life gives us all plenty of crap to deal with. So why tolerate policies and social attitudes that add more to our piles?

I agree with you that it would be nice to change things that could be changed, but I'm really interested in knowing when and where these great times were when pretty much all aspects of life didn't favor those with money.

Edited July 17, 2017 by creekland

[SKL]

And somewhere, somebody is complaining because their kid isn't getting any financial aid because it only goes to people with lower incomes than they have.

 

When I went to college, I applied for a need-based scholarship and didn't get it.  I wondered why, since I met all the criteria and came from a low-income family with 6 kids.  Come to find out that my friend got the scholarship.  The difference between us was that her family had 11 kids.  Oh well!  :)

[TravelingChris]

I just checked how much dh and I rose in quintiles from the time we left for college. Somewhere around second or third to now upper fifth. But that is nationwide and we came from NYC area and DC area and so are parental incomes were lower quintiles in those areas. We did go to Ivy + schools and we have done better than what they say is average for us (as a household or counting dh only- I don't have income so I bring the average down). But varying in quintiles can occur for many reasons. I have one friend who went from low income to probably fourth or fifth quintile to much lower again because of husband's crimes. My mother came from a very wealthy (big landowners, chefs, governesses, etc) family. WW2 came and she, as a 16 yo with her 5 yo, tried to find an escape route as directed by her father. The Soviets caught them, took them back to her family and her father slapped her face for running away (a way to save the entire family except for her and she was perfectly okay with the story). She was sent to a Russian gulag and barely survived. My father and his father and mother were also sent to a Gulag. My grandfather died there and after they were all released when the Soviet Union changed sides in the war, both my mother and father joined Allied forces after a long journey. Then my parents struggled for years after the war. My educated father even worked as a coal minor for a bit. All kinds of jobs= my mother got her education paid for by a friend of her family's that had escaped with money and was living in Italy. They met and got married in England as refugees and then came to the US in 1960 or so. So when I was born, we were probably middle income family since my father worked for Voice of America as a writer. When my father died when I was 13, we fell in income by a lot but did have help from his survivor benefits and very limited social security. So what I inherited was not only their intelligence but also their tenacity and grit. I don't know how to level that inheritance.

 

In my local paper, there is a series of articles going on about the racial disparity in academic outcomes in my state. They have a discussion group online with educators trying to figure it out. One finding is that the difference in attainment even holds for black children of high income parents. The second article brought up one possible reason- lower expectations of the kids by white teachers. Studies have observed that black teachers do not tolerate various excuses and behaviours that white teachers do (probably feeling sorry for the kids). Some areas are trying to recruit more minority teachers like my district. There are a few districts that have no black teachers. There are a few districts that have less than 10% white teachers. A big part of the problem is that people don't want to move to an area where they are in the very small minority. So the black teachers don't want to live in the rural, very white, mountain areas and the white teachers hesitate in moving to the very black rural counties. And it isn't simply racism on either part-- pay is much better in the wealthier urban districts. Most of the teachers they get who go to those rural districts are people who went to college and came back to the area- not people from a more diversified city. And it was interesting that the other main story is yesterday's paper is the growing divide between areas with good internet and areas without. It is hard problem to solve in very rural areas far from cities and particularly if they are not in between a route between two well connected cities. Some rural areas are getting great service because they are between Chattanooga and us or are rural areas by large cities or developed areas. The ones that are in poor counties with no big city and no transmission lines to other cities are losing out.

[TravelingChris]

I just checked how much dh and I rose in quintiles from the time we left for college. Somewhere around second or third to now upper fifth. But that is nationwide and we came from NYC area and DC area and so are parental incomes were lower quintiles in those areas. We did go to Ivy + schools and we have done better than what they say is average for us (as a household or counting dh only- I don't have income so I bring the average down). But varying in quintiles can occur for many reasons. I have one friend who went from low income to probably fourth or fifth quintile to much lower again because of husband's crimes. My mother came from a very wealthy (big landowners, chefs, governesses, etc) family. WW2 came and she, as a 16 yo with her 5 yo, tried to find an escape route as directed by her father. The Soviets caught them, took them back to her family and her father slapped her face for running away (a way to save the entire family except for her and she was perfectly okay with the story). She was sent to a Russian gulag and barely survived. My father and his father and mother were also sent to a Gulag. My grandfather died there and after they were all released when the Soviet Union changed sides in the war, both my mother and father joined Allied forces after a long journey. Then my parents struggled for years after the war. My educated father even worked as a coal minor for a bit. All kinds of jobs= my mother got her education paid for by a friend of her family's that had escaped with money and was living in Italy. They met and got married in England as refugees and then came to the US in 1960 or so. So when I was born, we were probably middle income family since my father worked for Voice of America as a writer. When my father died when I was 13, we fell in income by a lot but did have help from his survivor benefits and very limited social security. So what I inherited was not only their intelligence but also their tenacity and grit. I don't know how to level that inheritance.

 

In my local paper, there is a series of articles going on about the racial disparity in academic outcomes in my state. They have a discussion group online with educators trying to figure it out. One finding is that the difference in attainment even holds for black children of high income parents. The second article brought up one possible reason- lower expectations of the kids by white teachers. Studies have observed that black teachers do not tolerate various excuses and behaviours that white teachers do (probably feeling sorry for the kids). Some areas are trying to recruit more minority teachers like my district. There are a few districts that have no black teachers. There are a few districts that have less than 10% white teachers. A big part of the problem is that people don't want to move to an area where they are in the very small minority. So the black teachers don't want to live in the rural, very white, mountain areas and the white teachers hesitate in moving to the very black rural counties. And it isn't simply racism on either part-- pay is much better in the wealthier urban districts. Most of the teachers they get who go to those rural districts are people who went to college and came back to the area- not people from a more diversified city. And it was interesting that the other main story is yesterday's paper is the growing divide between areas with good internet and areas without. It is hard problem to solve in very rural areas far from cities and particularly if they are not in between a route between two well connected cities. Some rural areas are getting great service because they are between Chattanooga and us or are rural areas by large cities or developed areas. The ones that are in poor counties with no big city and no transmission lines to other cities are losing out.

[Guest]

My mind is blown. No access to higher education? That's how life works! Health care costs got you in bankruptcy?? That's how life works!! Kids shackled with student loan debt?? That's how life works!!

 

But, hey, enjoy it because you're not a starving orphan!

Edited July 17, 2017 by Moxie

[Guest]

Life is the crazy mother, the peanut allergy, the debilitating arthritis.

 

Insurance costs, education costs, property tax so high working people can't pay rent, those are all politics.

[Lady Florida.]

Life is the crazy mother, the peanut allergy, the debilitating arthritis.

 

Insurance costs, education costs, property tax so high working people can't pay rent, those are all politics.

 

Exactly. Health care costs aren't "life" in most other Western countries.

[Murphy101]

My mind is blown. No access to higher education? That's how life works! Health care costs got you in bankruptcy?? That's how life works!! Kids shackled with student loan debt?? That's how life works!!

 

But, hey, enjoy it because you're not a starving orphan!

No.

Damn.

Kidding.

 

Wtbleep. Yes, there are places that have mitigating policies. They aren't perfect, but they are improvements that at least try to strive for better equality.

 

Our goal as a society should not be to call it good enough as long as our children aren't sex trafficked, beaten into child labor or starving.

[Lady Florida.]

i don't live there, therefore, they are part of how life works for me.

 

The point is it doesn't have to be. Some things are just life, illness and accidents included. The access to and cost of care for such things, as Moxie said, are politics. And that's something we can change. It doesn't have to be "just life".

[Lady Florida.]

i think people are deliberately missing the word BOTH in my posts. Did I ever say that bad policies shouldn't be changed? Did I ever say just accept things as they are?

 

Or did I say change BOTH? Did I say work on both? Did I say work to change the policies AND make the different choices for you that will help you improve your situation within what we do have now, since society wide changes take time? The answer is that yes I did say both. I don't understand why it seems that people aren't reading that.

 

Yes, but you seem to think everyone has choices, which simply isn't true. You said to just deal with the way things are now by making different choices, while trying to change the way things are. So, for someone who can only afford the most basic health insurance (either through the ACA or work) walks out into the street and gets hit by a bus, or by genetic lottery gets a particularly bad type of cancer, what different choices should they have made?

Edited July 17, 2017 by Lady Florida.

[Guest]

Yes, but you seem to think everyone has choices, which simply isn't true. You said to just deal with the way things are now by making different choices, while trying to change the way things are. So, for someone who can only afford the most basic health insurance (either through the ACA or work) walks out into the street and gets hit by a bus, or by genetic lottery gets a particularly bad type of cancer, what different choices should they have made?

And thank God for the ACA. Not too many years ago, someone who didn't win the genetic lottery would be uninsurable. There was no choice to be made, you were just screwed by the rules.

Edited July 17, 2017 by Moxie

[goldberry]

I think this is a fascinating thread. There have been lots of ideas presented about what people should do to improve their situation, but I think it is important to understand that there are actually things to be known about social mobility in the US that should inform our decisions as a public. As inequality has increased more and more, social scientists have been studying it over multiple generations. The US has some of the lowest social mobility rates in the developed world. Social mobility rates in the US have regional variations (they are particularly low in the South and the Rust belt). The US does much less than other similar developed countries to even out disposable income. And we have seen a significant decrease in government spending/investment in what political scientists call "the commons," i.e. education, infrastructure and other things whose benefits are shared by all, especially since the 1980s. So it doesn't really make sense to compare what our parents or grandparents did to what we experience now. If it feels like the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are running like hamsters on a wheel and staying in the same place, that's because that is in fact what is happening. 

 

There are lots of public policies that could address these changes (we know this because it was public policy that put us in this place). Here is a good survey article that clearly explains some of these changes and solutions, and the work of some of the researchers who are studying this problem. The point of understanding these policy changes is to understand that the rise and fall of social mobility in the US has never really been about attitude, but rather about public policy. That is what people in this thread mean when they say they can't change things by changing their attitude. It might be good for your mental health to cultivate an attitude of optimism or acceptance, to be grateful for what you have etc.., but it is not going to change the actual situation on the ground. Public policy matters. It has a real effect on people's lives. 

 

 

Seems to me that when you look at the whole picture we have other better, more comprehensive and more plausible explanations than just a bunch of average joes throwing in the towel.

 

Very well said, thank you.

[creekland]

My mind is blown. No access to higher education? That's how life works! Health care costs got you in bankruptcy?? That's how life works!! Kids shackled with student loan debt?? That's how life works!!

 

But, hey, enjoy it because you're not a starving orphan!

 

You really should just have put a JAWM into the title if all you wanted was sympathy and no real thoughts/advice.

 

My mind is blown thinking we're supposed to be lying and telling you that life is really fair or that you (and others) have drawn the worst lottery number on the planet or in respective countries.

 

Instead, we're agreeing it sucks, calling reality, "reality," and suggesting changes that could help individuals in the country we live in - while NOT opposing voting for change - then we're called obtuse and find someone else's mind is blown.

 

Not to mention... all of this on a striving for higher education homeschooling board...

 

Next thing you know we might mention Santa Claus isn't real or that the world is round and blow other minds I suppose.

 

Life is the crazy mother, the peanut allergy, the debilitating arthritis.

 

Insurance costs, education costs, property tax so high working people can't pay rent, those are all politics.

 

I'm all for universal health care and more toward education costs, but you are aware that those will raise taxes, right?  

 

No.

Damn.

Kidding.

 

Wtbleep. Yes, there are places that have mitigating policies. They aren't perfect, but they are improvements that at least try to strive for better equality.

 

Our goal as a society should not be to call it good enough as long as our children aren't sex trafficked, beaten into child labor or starving.

 

Please show me where this has happened on this thread... and I'm still waiting for that magic time in history where life didn't favor the wealthy - even in places with universal health care.

 

 

The point is it doesn't have to be. Some things are just life, illness and accidents included. The access to and cost of care for such things, as Moxie said, are politics. And that's something we can change. It doesn't have to be "just life".

 

And just how are you going to change it?  By voting?  I've been doing that for more than 3 decades now and a wee little bit has changed, but not much.  By influencing others (next generation)?  I've been doing that for two decades now... still not a whole lot of change.

 

If the OP (or others) are planning on waiting for politics to solve all their issues and make life "fair" - good luck.

[SereneHome]

OK, so what policies should be change?  What new policies should be created?

 

And who is paying for all that????

[SKL]

In my opinion, we're lucky in the USA to have so many different choices as far as education and career.  Some more accessible to modest-income people than others, but still a lot of real choices if we're honest.  That has a lot of value that we seem to take for granted.

 

I had the choice to take out a lot of debt to get my education.  Some choose not to do that.  In my case, it worked out pretty well once I was about 10 years out.  Those 10 years were very stressful.  I had multiple jobs for most of my adult life and lived very frugally (by US standards) until I had saved a "nest egg."  Just by making different choices, I could have ended up in a completely different life.  Even just looking at my siblings - what a difference.  Looking at my own kids, I can see how much choices will impact their lives.  Sure, other things will matter too - their IQ, sex, race, and other things they were born with.  But not so much that their choices aren't the main predictors.

 

One of my kids struggles in school.  If we had policies like some countries that provide "free university" but only for those who test high, my kid would not stand a chance to develop some of her talents.  Is that really what we want?  Think long and hard before demanding more government control over our choices.

[Bootsie]

I think this is a fascinating thread. There have been lots of ideas presented about what people should do to improve their situation, but I think it is important to understand that there are actually things to be known about social mobility in the US that should inform our decisions as a public. As inequality has increased more and more, social scientists have been studying it over multiple generations. The US has some of the lowest social mobility rates in the developed world. Social mobility rates in the US have regional variations (they are particularly low in the South and the Rust belt). The US does much less than other similar developed countries to even out disposable income. And we have seen a significant decrease in government spending/investment in what political scientists call "the commons," i.e. education, infrastructure and other things whose benefits are shared by all, especially since the 1980s. So it doesn't really make sense to compare what our parents or grandparents did to what we experience now. If it feels like the rich are getting richer and the rest of us are running like hamsters on a wheel and staying in the same place, that's because that is in fact what is happening. 

 

There are lots of public policies that could address these changes (we know this because it was public policy that put us in this place). Here is a good survey article that clearly explains some of these changes and solutions, and the work of some of the researchers who are studying this problem. The point of understanding these policy changes is to understand that the rise and fall of social mobility in the US has never really been about attitude, but rather about public policy. That is what people in this thread mean when they say they can't change things by changing their attitude. It might be good for your mental health to cultivate an attitude of optimism or acceptance, to be grateful for what you have etc.., but it is not going to change the actual situation on the ground. Public policy matters. It has a real effect on people's lives. 

This is a quote for the cited article:

 

"Hendren said there’s no less chance today of rising or falling along the income spectrum than there was 25 years ago. “The chances of moving up or down the ladder are the same,†he said, “but the way we think about inequality is that the rungs on the ladder have gotten wider. The difference between being at the top versus the bottom of the income distribution is wider, so the consequences of being born to a poor family in dollar terms are wider.â€"

 

Some people who are opposed to bigger government and more government policies and programs to address this point to the fact that the policies over the past few decades have not changed income mobility. Are the government policies in the last few decades that were meant to address income disparity and access to education disparity actually resulting in making the problem worse rather than better?   

[creekland]

Yes, but you seem to think everyone has choices, which simply isn't true. You said to just deal with the way things are now by making different choices, while trying to change the way things are. So, for someone who can only afford the most basic health insurance (either through the ACA or work) walks out into the street and gets hit by a bus, or by genetic lottery gets a particularly bad type of cancer, what different choices should they have made?

 

This type of "life isn't fair" is a different topic TBH.  It's health care and the bulk of us on here have already said we'd prefer some sort of universal health care in the US.  Our wishes aren't reality though.

 

Choices this thread has been talking about deals with income/wealth.

 

Fact #1:  Some people are born wealthy.  Many are not.

 

Fact #2:  Having more wealth makes living easier (not necessarily happier, but easier).  Money can buy toys as well as pay for and upgrade essentials.

 

Fact #3:  The majority born wealthy stay wealthy.  The majority not wealthy remain not wealthy.  (You can substitute poor, but one doesn't have to be poor to be in the "not wealthy" class.)

 

Fact #4:  Some people are able to buck the trend - to go from a lower economic class to a higher one (perhaps wealthy, perhaps not, but higher).  Examples were shared.  Common denominators were shared in case some folks reading think they'd want to try to help themselves do similarly.

 

Fact #5:  If one does nothing but complain, short of the lottery coming their way - see Fact #3.

 

Side Bit 1:  It'd be terrific if political policies were different in some ways (esp health care in the US), but waiting for that to be changed is also probably not one's best route if they want to change their income level in this life.  Nonetheless, make an effort to vote.

 

Side Bit 2:  It's often nice when those with more income do what they can to assist those with less, but not everyone with less wants this.  Pride gets in the way.

 

Side Bit 3:  Some folks with less get extremely jealous of those who want to change their "lot" in life (even when those folks are family members).  This adds an extra burden on those trying, probably making change impossible for most of them - fits into Fact #3.

 

Side Bit 4:  Not everyone with less fits into those in Side Bit 3.  When families/friends pull together chances of "moving up" increase - fits into Fact #4.

 

So what choices can change?  With health issues, not much after the fact.  Beforehand one could decide to try to increase income.  Nothing is guaranteed - except that without actually trying, it's not likely to happen.

[SKL]

It's proven many times over that if a person believes he can't do something, he will sabotage his own efforts just to prove to himself that he was right.  They would rather succeed in failing than fail in succeeding.

 

That's why I think it's important that we keep the focus on what IS possible.

[Bootsie]

 

 

Fact #3:  The majority born wealthy stay wealthy.  The majority not wealthy remain not wealthy.  (You can substitute poor, but one doesn't have to be poor to be in the "not wealthy" class.)

 

.

The fact is there is a great deal of movement in and out of these classes:

 

Of those appearing in the top 400 incomes in the US over 22 years, 72% were on this list only ONE year.  Only 3% remained on the list for over a decade.

 

Over 1/2 of Americans are in the top 10% sometime in their life; 54% of the US population experiences being at or near the poverty level sometime by their 60th birthday.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/top-1/index.html

[goldberry]

 

Some people who are opposed to bigger government and more government policies and programs to address this point to the fact that the policies over the past few decades have not changed income mobility. Are the government policies in the last few decades that were meant to address income disparity and access to education disparity actually resulting in making the problem worse rather than better?   

 

Which policies are you referring to?  

 

I think a core issue is the increase of money influence in policy.  Campaign finance reforms have failed and after Citizen's United the outlook is for increased influence rather than decreased.  

 

This quote is what I think we are seeing.  Decisions are made all down the line with the interest of the wealthy in mind rather than the interest of the common citizen, because the wealthy are who fund the politicians.  Until that is addressed I don't think any real gains will be made in other areas.

 

“Something like the carried-interest provision in the tax code, when you explain it to ordinary citizens, they don’t like the idea that income earned by investing other people’s money should be taxed at a lower rate than regular wage and salary income. It’s not popular in some broad, polling sense. But many politicians probably don’t realize it at all because … politicians spend a lot of their time asking people to give money to them [who] don’t think it’s a good idea to change that,†said Skocpol. “There’s a real danger that, as wealth and income are more and more concentrated toward the top, it does become a vicious circle.â€

[hepatica]

This is a quote for the cited article:

 

"Hendren said there’s no less chance today of rising or falling along the income spectrum than there was 25 years ago. “The chances of moving up or down the ladder are the same,†he said, “but the way we think about inequality is that the rungs on the ladder have gotten wider. The difference between being at the top versus the bottom of the income distribution is wider, so the consequences of being born to a poor family in dollar terms are wider.â€"

 

Some people who are opposed to bigger government and more government policies and programs to address this point to the fact that the policies over the past few decades have not changed income mobility. Are the government policies in the last few decades that were meant to address income disparity and access to education disparity actually resulting in making the problem worse rather than better?   

 

The linked article was a simple survey of research into income inequality - more a starting point than anything else. My comments about decreases in social mobility take into account additional research by academic economists ( a few academic studies published later in 2016) that show both that past research has overestimated social mobility in the US, and, more importantly, that there does in fact appear to be a decline in mobility in recent decades.  Trying to stay out of the academic weeds here.

 

Interestingly, this recent decline in mobility applies to college graduates as well. As the rungs on the ladder get further and further apart, it takes more than a college degree to bridge them. 

 

Things that could make a real difference: increase the minimum wage, expand the earned income tax credit, expand the medicaid expansion, generously fund universal pre-k and elementary education, invest in low cost or free community college, support serious policies to reduce housing segregation and clean up of toxic environments (getting rid of lead and toxins in low income areas), make the tax code more progressive by taxing investment income (capital gains) the same as work.

 

Just some ideas....

[Bootsie]

Which policies are you referring to?  

 

I think a core issue is the increase of money influence in policy.  Campaign finance reforms have failed and after Citizen's United the outlook is for increased influence rather than decreased.  

 

This quote is what I think we are seeing.  Decisions are made all down the line with the interest of the wealthy in mind rather than the interest of the common citizen, because the wealthy are who fund the politicians.  Until that is addressed I don't think any real gains will be made in other areas.

 

“Something like the carried-interest provision in the tax code, when you explain it to ordinary citizens, they don’t like the idea that income earned by investing other people’s money should be taxed at a lower rate than regular wage and salary income. It’s not popular in some broad, polling sense. But many politicians probably don’t realize it at all because … politicians spend a lot of their time asking people to give money to them [who] don’t think it’s a good idea to change that,†said Skocpol. “There’s a real danger that, as wealth and income are more and more concentrated toward the top, it does become a vicious circle.â€

A generation has been educated since Head Start and free breakfast programs in schools have occurred.  Is access to good education any better today than it was several decades ago?  

[creekland]

The fact is there is a great deal of movement in and out of these classes:

 

Of those appearing in the top 400 incomes in the US over 22 years, 72% were on this list only ONE year.  Only 3% remained on the list for over a decade.

 

Over 1/2 of Americans are in the top 10% sometime in their life; 54% of the US population experiences being at or near the poverty level sometime by their 60th birthday.

 

http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/07/news/economy/top-1/index.html

 

But my link from the NYT (a page ago - using real stats) was talking quintiles, not purely Top 400 (which easily falls into a small portion of the Top 1%).

 

And yes, incomes rise and fall, not only due to sales, etc, as your article says, but also... who among us made as much in our teen years as we do at our prime (assuming jobs at both points)?  Do you start at the top at your job?  Most don't.

 

Then lastly, the NYT grouping was wealth, not income.  One can have a lot of wealth without much of it coming as income.  Houses get paid for.  Investments can be bought and kept, etc.

 

My "just graduated" kids are at their "poor" stage now, but it's highly unlikely they will stay there even though we don't make the Top 10% (according to your article).  Others without their background and education at a similar stage in life aren't as likely to progress on equally TBH.

 

While your article is true, it's also misleading if one doesn't see the whole picture that was left out.

[Bootsie]

 

 

Things that could make a real difference: increase the minimum wage, expand the earned income tax credit, expand the medicaid expansion, generously fund universal pre-k and elementary education, invest in low cost or free community college, support serious policies to reduce housing segregation and clean up of toxic environments (getting rid of lead and toxins in low income areas), make the tax code more progressive by taxing investment income (capital gains) the same as work.

 

Just some ideas....

Is there any evidence that increases in the minimum wage are associated with increased economic mobility?  It could help some low-income individuals have more income, but that doesn't necessarily lead to economic mobility.  In addition, it is likely to lead to some losing their jobs.  In addition over 1/2 of people in minimum wage jobs live in families in the top 1/2 of the income distribution.  So, raising the minimum wage does not target the group it was meant to help.

 

The US is spending more than some other nations (that have less income disparity) on education.  How will spending more help this issue?  

 

Making the tax code more progressive may change after-tax income distribution, but would it really change the underlying distribution?  How would it impact those who are in the lower end of the income distribution who rely on capital gains income--the retired?   What would it do to investment levels (and wealth creation for society in general)?  

[SereneHome]

Things that could make a real difference: increase the minimum wage, expand the earned income tax credit, expand the medicaid expansion, generously fund universal pre-k and elementary education, invest in low cost or free community college, support serious policies to reduce housing segregation and clean up of toxic environments (getting rid of lead and toxins in low income areas), make the tax code more progressive by taxing investment income (capital gains) the same as work.

 

 

How is all this being funded?

 

Why no one wants to answer that??

 

BTW re: housing segregation - Sect 8 does not limit where one can rent.  We were paying over $2K for our apartment in MA, while our neighbor was paying $475  - very nice apartments 20 minutes away from Boston with excellent public transportation around it.  She complained and complained and complained how unfair it was she had to pay her own electric bill bc "apartments were build so crappy that it was cold in the winter and her bills were high".  Yeah, cold in the winter in New England....SHOCKER!

 

 

[Murphy101]

A generation has been educated since Head Start and free breakfast programs in schools have occurred. Is access to good education any better today than it was several decades ago?

Head start can vary a LOT. Some are really awful. Some are really great. Usually it's about as good as the school district it is located in. No surprise at the result, wealthier districts have better outcomes. But overall? There's little to no proof that preschools of any kind have long term improvements. Usually iirc by 4th grade, you can't tell which kids were in preschool or not.

 

Other factors seem to make a bigger difference:

Books in the home and parents who read to them regularly

Parents engaged in their education

A positive social environment at their school

A school that provides early and consistent academic helps, such as free tutoring on site after school with later bus routes for kids who need it. (So if a kid just doesn't understand that days math lesson - he can go to tutoring. He doesn't have to wait until he has fallen 2 grade levels behind or has had detention for not doing the work because he thinks he is stupid.)

Music, foreign languages, visual arts and skill building options also seem to spur more academic success. Children whose non-academic interests are not taken away for academic reasons seem to do better in both.

 

A child could not take off in reading until "late" but if they have all of that, even if they didn't start K until 6 or 7 yrs old, they will likely end up further and better off educationally than the kid who read earlier and had preschool but none of those other things.

 

There's been many discussions on this board about countries and school and history lessons that illustrate this.

[creekland]

How is all this being funded?

 

Why no one wants to answer that??

 

I can answer this.  Higher taxes.  If you look at US tax rates throughout history (and you can, here):

 

https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/

 

you will find that we've had much higher tax rates on the wealthy in the past - 39.6% not too long ago, 50% back in the 80s, 70% in the 70s, 91% in the 60s, etc.  Shockingly enough, we still had the wealthy among us even with those higher rates.  The Vanderbilts, Morgans, Rockefellers, etc, were still able to own and staff their mansions, corporations, and even donated to libraries, music centers, colleges, and more.

 

I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to decide just how much annual income one needs to live on (and remain wealthy) and then more highly tax the rest to help pay for things the population needs - like health care, education, etc.  One could even set that amount at 1 million (for the highest tax bracket) and I'm pretty sure the majority of us could still figure out how to eke out a darn decent living with anything more than that taxed at 70 or 90%.

 

I don't think the rest of us should get out of paying taxes either.  We want health care and education, fine, we help pay for it (through our taxes - increase them on everyone, but balance out how much increase there is to try to make things more "livable" for the minions who aren't making a million per year ).  But I don't think we need to be buying into the fallacy that everyone in the Top 10% should be taxed at the same rate or that trickle down economics actually helps (it didn't - for the most part only the wealthy became wealthier), the same way I don't buy the idea that Aids/Diabetes meds or Epipens had to be raised so much because their companies weren't making enough money.

 

Go back to policies that were a bit more fair - the wealth distribution would help far more people.  Exactly how much does one person need in their portfolio anyway - while others work their butts off trying to pay for some of the basics in life?

 

Then too... no, I don't buy the idea that Capital Gains income needs to be taxed at a lower rate.  All income should be taxed at the same rate IMO - retirees or not.  In general, it's not just retirees capitalizing on that.  It's folks who have invested - aka - the more wealthy among us.  Remember too, taxes don't take away the principal, only a portion of what is earned annually on that principal - same with wages.  Plus, the highest tax rate wouldn't kick in on the first X dollars - only the portion earned above that amount.

 

But as a pp said, it's the wealthy who donate to politicians (both sides of the aisle).  I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for more fairness to happen.

[goldberry]

How is all this being funded?

 

Why no one wants to answer that??

 

BTW re: housing segregation - Sect 8 does not limit where one can rent.  

 

Funding is a matter of priorities.  Right now part of the proposed health care cuts is repealing some taxes implemented that mostly will benefit wealthier Americans.  It's all about what our priorities are as a nation.

 

Section 8 does not work the same in all areas.  It most certainly limits where you rent in some areas.  I don't know if that's state or local.

[goldberry]

Making the tax code more progressive may change after-tax income distribution, but would it really change the underlying distribution?  How would it impact those who are in the lower end of the income distribution who rely on capital gains income--the retired?   What would it do to investment levels (and wealth creation for society in general)?  

 

Capital gains taxes are usually tied to income thresholds.  It wouldn't be impossible to make sure those in the lower income range aren't harmed by this

[goldberry]

I'm reading a book about how the financial sector in America has really taken over and become its own self-sustaining entity.  Financial transactions used to be *part* of other actual producing businesses, but now are done more and more so for their own sake (i.e. making money by moving money around basically).  It talked about how even companies like Apple are spending larger and larger portions of their money in this way rather than reinvesting in actual production/research/etc.  Really interesting.  But our tax laws and other regulations haven't kept up with this.  We still in our minds think of that kind of money as *different* somehow, when it's really just another business in itself.

[Carol in Cal.]

I don't have time to post thoughts right now, but I've been reading on a theme this year of social mobility, inequality, etc. Maybe I'm trying to come to grips with the trajectory of my life until now, lol.

 

I highly recommend the "trilogy" of Hillbilly Elegy, Evicted, and The Broken Ladder.

 

Success is just that, but looks different based on circumstances. Mobility requires personal and social sacrifices, in both directions. Social and economic inequality deeply affect both.

Adding "The Broken Ladder" to my list.

You might want to also look at "Janesville" and "Strangers In Their Own Land".  De Tocqueville is also interesting in this regard.

[Frances]

I can answer this. Higher taxes. If you look at US tax rates throughout history (and you can, here):

 

https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/

 

you will find that we've had much higher tax rates on the wealthy in the past - 39.6% not too long ago, 50% back in the 80s, 70% in the 70s, 91% in the 60s, etc. Shockingly enough, we still had the wealthy among us even with those higher rates. The Vanderbilts, Morgans, Rockefellers, etc, were still able to own and staff their mansions, corporations, and even donated to libraries, music centers, colleges, and more.

 

I don't think it's all that much of a stretch to decide just how much annual income one needs to live on (and remain wealthy) and then more highly tax the rest to help pay for things the population needs - like health care, education, etc. One could even set that amount at 1 million (for the highest tax bracket) and I'm pretty sure the majority of us could still figure out how to eke out a darn decent living with anything more than that taxed at 70 or 90%.

 

I don't think the rest of us should get out of paying taxes either. We want health care and education, fine, we help pay for it (through our taxes - increase them on everyone, but balance out how much increase there is to try to make things more "livable" for the minions who aren't making a million per year ). But I don't think we need to be buying into the fallacy that everyone in the Top 10% should be taxed at the same rate or that trickle down economics actually helps (it didn't - for the most part only the wealthy became wealthier), the same way I don't buy the idea that Aids/Diabetes meds or Epipens had to be raised so much because their companies weren't making enough money.

 

Go back to policies that were a bit more fair - the wealth distribution would help far more people. Exactly how much does one person need in their portfolio anyway - while others work their butts off trying to pay for some of the basics in life?

 

Then too... no, I don't buy the idea that Capital Gains income needs to be taxed at a lower rate. All income should be taxed at the same rate IMO - retirees or not. In general, it's not just retirees capitalizing on that. It's folks who have invested - aka - the more wealthy among us. Remember too, taxes don't take away the principal, only a portion of what is earned annually on that principal - same with wages. Plus, the highest tax rate wouldn't kick in on the first X dollars - only the portion earned above that amount.

 

But as a pp said, it's the wealthy who donate to politicians (both sides of the aisle). I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for more fairness to happen.

Yes to your last paragraph. On my darkest days, I feel like both sides have been completely bought and paid for by corporations and wealthy individuals.